PDA

View Full Version : Lawyer Spectacle


John Cole
07-19-2003, 12:54 PM
I loved watching Kobe Bryant's defense team scrambling to establish public opinion. Amazingly, they don't consider the phrase "Rush to Judgment" timeworn and invoked it whenever called for. In addition, they nimbly tried to implant the idea that the young DA pursued the case to establish a reputation. And, they also claimed that the facts did not warrant a charge.

However, when asked for specifics--imagine specifics--they responded with "That goes to the facts of the case; we won't answer that."

Why, at that point, doesn't at least one reporter ask, "Why are you wasting our time if you won't answer questions?"

John

scalf
07-19-2003, 01:15 PM
/forums/images/icons/mad.gif duh-uh...because kobies's lawyers want the exposure on tv as "defenders of kobe"...i bet their fees go up...lol...also you can bill more for live performances..such as court appearances...than research...lol..but they are worth every million dollars...jmho..gl /forums/images/icons/club.gif

HDPM
07-19-2003, 02:11 PM
Ah, why not charge as much for office time? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

HDPM
07-19-2003, 02:19 PM
I posted in the Kobe thread about what I heard them say before seeing your post. I didn't like what I heard from his lawyers. Granted they have done more high publicity cases than I, but I prefer a professional and tight-lipped approach with the media. Because you can't control what they do and how they portray things and it is just never in the defendant's interest to tip his hand. IMO his lawyers shoud have a stock answer that is mostly fluff, with maybe a little positive spin. Something like "We can't comment on the case now, because we don't want to try this case in the media. A big spectacle doesn't serve anybody. Mr. Bryant looks forward to his day in court where a jury will decide the facts. We are confident that the jury will do the right thing after hearing all the facts and Mr. Bryant will be exonerated." Or something similar. It just never helps a defendant to talk to the cops or the press. Kobe's lawyers should even tell his wife that Kobe isn't to speak to her about the case.

Ragnar
07-19-2003, 02:27 PM
I am a retired prosecutor, and have prosecuted sexual assault cases. I have also been a defense attorney in major cases, although I haven't tried a sexual assault case from the defense side.

Both sides were trying very hard to follow the ethical rules. Those rules don't allow commenting on the facts.

The comment by Kobe's lawyer that the prosecutor shouldn't have filed the case was a bit of a cheap shot, however the rest of the press conference was pretty professional.

This is why the lawyers on both sides didn't talk about the facts. The media is used to lawyers who are willing to violate the ethical rules. That is also why the defense attorney was so upset about statements made by the sheriff. He did poison the well by talking about the facts.

The idea of course is that neither side should be allowed to taint the jury pool--that the jurors should hear the facts for the first time from the stand. In today's America with the press playing everything as luridly as possible that is pretty much a hopeless concept. The public wants instant gratification.

I really don't think that Kobe wants his trial in that part of Colorado. It is a major home court advantage for the prosecution and the victim.

Look for another lawyer to be the main trial attorney for Kobe. If you recall Johnnie Cochran wasn't brought in on O.J.'s team immediately. But as I've told many people if you are charged with a major crime you don't want Johnnie Cochran to represent you. You want the local equivalent of Johnnie Cochran. Cochran is a masterful attorney (although apparently currently reduced to TV defense of Pete Rose), but his real edge in the OJ case was knowing the court personnel, the judge (he had been his supervisor in the LA DA's office) and especially the jury pool.

Lets wait and see what the facts really are.

Ragnar

HDPM
07-19-2003, 02:57 PM
Interesting comment on venue. One problem is all the publicity - it is everywhere. The only high publicity problems I have had to deal with were problems created by local coverage. So even though the coverage was very unfavorable a change of venue solved the problem. In this case, where do you go? And I don't know off hand what might be an ideal venue in Colorado for Kobe, even assuming he can get a change of venue. probably Denver. Boulder is way too liberal pro-feminist and anti-rape. Juries will convict on sexual assault there. But in the conservative venues like Co. Spgs or Jeffco, a rape by a rich African American might not play so well. Kind of reminds me of the defendant who got a change of venue in a high publicity death case in Colorado. Good news bad news, you win the change of venue then get your case heard in Co. Spgs in front of 6 retired colonels or generals, 4 ministers, and two miscellaneous right wing lunatics. Congrats, Mr. Defendant, do you prefer left arm or right arm for that needle? This is an ideal case to hire an excellent jury consultant. Kobe can get a lot of help for between 50 and 100K including demographics, mock trials etc... Might be the best money he spends. He should do that immediately. And I hope they had a hand in preparing him for speaking to the press. I thought that was a mistake, but I at least hope they had a solid plan.

I don't know his lawyers. Haddon has a great reputation there. Don't know the woman who I think is his partner. The Denver lawyers should come across OK in that area. Several are certainly more than capable of handling the case.

andyfox
07-19-2003, 03:31 PM
I heard today that change of venue is not as easy to accomplish in Colorado than most other states. If indeed it's a small town and the girl was well known there, that could be significant (in both ways, depending on how the girl is perceived there). [I use "girl" because she's 19; in my mind, not a woman.]

I note in the picture Tom Haley posted in the other thread, all the cheerleaders were white. What will the racil make-up of the jury likely be?

HDPM
07-19-2003, 03:54 PM
My guess the jury will have at least 10 whites, maybe all 12 plus alternates. Wealthy mountain areas are predominately white. Never looked at change of venue in Colorado, so I don't know for sure. Judges all over are reluctant to grant them. I doubt Kobe will get one. My impression is that the locals in the resort areas - the ones who live there year round and send their kids to school there - all know each other. That could make things interesting.

The only case I had in the mountains there was a lot less serious. Things seemed pretty casual. It was a delivery of drugs case in Summit County which is near Eagle County. Prosecutor had spent a career in Chicago and came to Breckenridge to retire. They had my guy dead to rights on tape but gave him a very favorable misdemeanor deal after I filed some motions that could cause some headaches. Moved to the high desert not long thereafter. All in all the mountains seemed like a nice place to practice law, much less hectic than Denver. One person I knew in law school was from Vail and opened a practice there. I only talked to her once or twice after school, but she said she had to raise her prices because the people didn't think they were paying enough on real estate closings on expensive homes, and that she didn't spend a powder morning in the office.

Ragnar
07-19-2003, 04:28 PM
Thanks HDPM for the Colorado info. My experience is in Arizona. Amazingly in even the most high profile cases there were a large number of people who hadn't heard of the cases even locally.

I prosecuted a high profile baby killing case and three jurors from the town where it occurred hadn't even heard about it. I tried some big cases with statewide publicity, but no national publicity cases. (One was on court TV, but it hadn't received national publicity until the court TV trial coverage.)

Another problem is what occurs when a prospective juror has heard or seen coverage. In Arizona the juror is not removed for cause if he says that he can be fair despite hearing or seeing the coverage.

Jury research is important, and your analysis of that is dead on from my experience, but another factor that must be considered is who makes the venue decision if there is a change of venue? In Arizona the presiding judge of the county in which the crime occurs picks the venue after the change is ordered in most cases. What is the mechanism for doing that in Colorado? If I were Kobe's lawyer I'd definitely want to know that.

Ragnar

HDPM
07-19-2003, 05:54 PM
Don't know the mechanism in colorado on how the new venue is picked. In my limited experience in another state the parties meet in chambers and lobby the judge on where they want it. The judge then decides. And not on the basis of where good hotels or restaurants are of course. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Don't you love it when jurors know nothing? Or when a case has received a lot of publicity and they say "Who beleives what's in our local paper?" The reporters never include those statements in the story I have noticed.

John Cole
07-19-2003, 06:53 PM
Ragnar,

Thanks for your comments. I wonder if press conferences are a good idea at all, especially given that facts will not be discussed, and both sides can claim those very facts they won't discuss will prove something.

John

HDPM
07-20-2003, 01:27 AM
I did about 10 minutes of internet research on the colorado change of venue rules. As expected, they are not explicit on how any new venue is selected. It is the generic "if the defendant can't get a fair trial in one county, the judge can move it to another one..." stuff. It appears from the rule that if venue is transferred a new judge gets it. Maybe I'm wrong. IME in my state, the same judge keeps it. Seemed like in Colorado it goes to another district and the case is assigned from there. No practical experience w/it in CO tho.

Ragnar
07-20-2003, 10:27 AM
John,

Press conferences in these cases are probably necessary. Some elected prosecutors and defense attorneys don't follow the rules and do talk about the facts. In a high profile case it is pretty much expected. If you don't talk to the press they rip you. You can hold the press conference and deflect some of the media that way. If you don't hold one in a case like this it looks like you are hiding something.

I used to train prosecutors in dealing with the media. I would have handled the press conference slightly differently than the DA in Colorado did. I would have said, "Ethical rules don't allow me to comment on the facts." Then it sounds like you want to talk, but those pesky ethical rules prohibit it. You would love to put the facts in your favor out there, but you can. You look like you want to talk, which is true, but you are just too damn ethical to do so.

They are also important to elected (or appointed as in this case in Colorado) prosecutors. Just as Bush wants to appear presidential they want to appear prosecutorial. They do answer some fair questions such as what the charges are, when the next hearing is, and how the process works. If the DA has political aspirations just being seen and having your name in the press is helpful for name identification.

Ragnar